domingo, 29 de outubro de 2017

Maldita Declaração Balfour! 100 years of expropriation and ethnic cleansing



No dia 02 de novembro de 2017,  a famigerada Declaração Balfour completa cem anos.  O lorde Arthur James transmitiu a seus descendentes um dos sobrenomes com energia mais negativa nos países árabes e entre pessoas bem-informadas. Balfour. Um epíteto que virou substantivo definido de uma leviana destituição de nacionalidade dos palestinos em troca de vantagens obscuras e uma supremacia regional hipotética.     Como a Grã-Bretanha pôde cometer tal infâmia?      Eu gostaria de acreditar que no século XXI tal sentença de morte de uma nação seria inexecutável. Graças à amplitude dos meios de comunicação, à melhor compreensão das culturas que compõem o mundo, e à diligência das ONGs internacionais de direitos humanos. Contudo, ontem e hoje, as decisões de cúpula continuam sendo ditadas por interesses econômico-políticos deletérios e imponderados.
Os tempos mudaram, mas os homens, pouco ou nada.
Hoje as más decisões são tomadas com a desculpa de terrorismo, que, diga-se de passagem, é produto de antigas e recentes decisões mal tomadas.
Nas primeiras décadas do século passado, os “terroristas” eram o Califa e o Kaiser. 
A Primeira Guerra Mundial deixou a Europa coberta de cadáveres – mais de sete milhões de civis e nove milhões de soldados. Foi uma guerra selvagem, do corpo a corpo, do fincar sua baioneta vendo os olhos da vítima passarem da vida à morte em todas suas etapas de surpresa, sofrimento e esvaziamento da energia vital.
O status quo mundial desmoronava. Na Europa, o império austro-húngaro se fragmentava; a Rússia tzarista dava o último suspiro com os bolcheviques às portas do palácio de inverno de Nicolas II; e do Oriente Médio à Europa do Leste, o império Otomano estava prestes a desmembrar-se em países a serem divididos entre os vencedores, sem nenhuma consideração étnico-cultural. Como fora feito na África.
Foi nesse clima de ganância e disputa dos espólios que a Grã-Bretanha teceu sua rede para instalar no Oriente Médio uma comunidade fundamentalista com a qual tinha mais afinidade do que com os árabes, embora estes já houvessem comprovado sua lealdade.
Dos males, o menor, pensaram.
Esta frase me obriga a divagar em algumas linhas sobre o cerne do preconceito que leva a tanto malfeito.
O racismo consome espíritos inseguros, obtusos, e tem nuances intrincadas. 
O racista carrega a rejeição na alma. É a diversidade que o amedronta e desagrada. São temores especulativos que motivam o gesto de excluir seu semelhante de aspecto e estirpe desconformes ao que lhe é familiar. É sua insegurança que acende a flama da intolerância. É a sua ignorância do outro que o leva a escolher errado, o que, a seu ver, é o menor mal. Pois o racismo tem graus e o racista sobe e desce degraus fundados em impulsos fatuais.
Os ingleses não fogem à regra que se aplica aos falhos seres humanos de forma geral (e os sionistas em particular, em doses cavalares).
Antes de elaborarem seus documentos estapafúrdios, Balfour e Sykes haviam feito comentários antissemitas que demonstravam que não era a simpatia pelos judeus que os motivava e sim a escolha de um aliado a seus olhos menos ‘exótico’ e mais ‘próximo’.
Os árabes inventaram a escrita, os algarismos, a álgebra, a lupa, a câmera fotográfica, inovações cirúrgicas, a organização hospitalar gratuita (hospital Ahmed Ibn Tulun, no Cairo, em 872), as virtudes do álcool e de plantas medicinais, legaram à humanidade progresso e tantas coisas úteis, além do consumo do café.
Porém, usavam túnicas em vez de ternos, falavam árabe em vez de línguas europeias, enfim, quantas barreiras viram os ingleses?
Quanto desdém no trato com estes associados secundários!
Quão fácil para um comitê de lordes não cumprir a palavra dada a um povo crédulo, visto como subalterno!
Os promotores da declaração Balfour devem ter tido a ilusão que suas diferenças com os sionistas eram menores por estes serem de origem europeia e terem sido criados nos moldes ocidentais, além de terem uma rede político-financeira poderosa. 
Os árabes, inclusive os cristãos, não exerciam nenhuma influência na América e na Europa. Eram povos e não ideólogos sem amor à pátria mater. Nômades ou sedentários, constituíam nações distantes e ainda não tinham aprendido a exercer o poder do petróleo.
Levando em conta apenas o aspecto externo, os recursos financeiros e a lábia, a opção deve ter sido até fácil.
No dia 02 de novembro, o porta-voz do então poderoso império britânico – ainda inteiro e aspirando a crescimento – transcrevia a carta, curta, mas devastadora, a ser enviada ao banqueiro que encabeçava uma das famílias mais influentes da Europa e talvez do mundo, com entrada em parlamentos, palácios, e gabinetes presidenciais em Paris, Londres e Washington.
Será que Balfour assinou o bilhete de testa franzida, com mão firme e decidida?
Quantas não foram as rasuras corrigidas, as folhas de papel timbrado rasgadas, antes da versão taxativa?
Mesmo os servidores de sua majestade tendo debatido a questão a fundo antes de Balfour sentar-se à sua escrivaninha, não deve ter sido fácil pôr sua firma, o sobrenome de sua família, embaixo de uma sentença que não lavrara.
Ou quem sabe não mediu as consequências drásticas de um único parágrafo, sucinto e dogmático.
"Caro Lorde Rothschild,  Tenho o grande prazer de endereçar-vos, em nome do governo de Sua Majestade, a seguinte declaração de simpatia quanto às aspirações sionistas, declaração submetida ao gabinete e por ele aprovada: ‘O governo de Sua Majestade encara favoravelmente o estabelecimento, na Palestina, de um lar nacional para o povo judeu, e empregará todos os seus esforços no sentido de facilitar a realização desse objetivo, entendendo-se claramente que nada será feito que possa atentar contra os direitos civis e religiosos das coletividades não-judaicas existentes na Palestina, nem contra os direitos e o estatuto político de que gozam os judeus em qualquer outro país.’
Desde já, declaro-me extremamente grato a V. Sa. pela gentileza de encaminhar esta declaração ao conhecimento da Organização Sionista.
Arthur James Balfour."
Uma das versões anteriores que vazou dizia “raça judia” em vez de “povo”. Um disparate retificado só pela metade; a menção “religião” talvez tenha sido cogitada, mas se tiver sido, foi descartada porque não cumpria a função desejada.
O enigma era como o rei George V, Balfour e as autoridades britânicas contavam garantir os direitos civis e religiosos dos cristãos e muçulmanos palestinos em um estado sionista de vocação declaradamente sectária.
Como criar um lar nacional judaico sem afetar drasticamente a população local, de outras crenças, com outras convicções e com uma cultura árabe de hospitalidade?
Nenhum jornal denunciou a cabala ou interpelou os conspiradores acerca da bomba relógio que depositavam no coração da Terra Santa.
Se alguém tiver perguntado algo, a resposta não foi publicada e não ficou nos anais.
O que ficou nos anais foi a contradição explícita que a Grã-Bretanha não resolveria nunca e conflagraria a contenda mais longa e a ocupação mais injusta da História, de Alexandre a Donald Trump.
A intenção implícita de Londres era conquistar a simpatia dos sionistas respondendo ao afã destes de “um renascimento nacional do povo judeu e seu ‘retorno’ à Palestina”.
Por isso a carta foi endereçada ao barão de Rothschild, porta-voz dos sionistas abastados, vistos como detentores de influência oculta considerável.
Visão e razão que, triste ironia da história, são próximas das dos antissemitas que detectam a “mão judia” nos grandes negócios nacionais e internacionais.
A propósito, o primeiro ministro da época evocou em suas memórias a potência da “raça judia” guiada por seus próprios interesses financeiros, enquanto que o lorde Balfour em questão, em 1905, promovera um projeto de lei que limitava a imigração na Inglaterra de quem? De judeus russos.
Às vezes, temor, obediência e desprezo se confundem em um coquetel explosivo que acarreta repercussões graduais e efeitos imprevisíveis.
Esta breve missiva endereçada a Lionel Walter Rothschild atendia a demanda do banqueiro, mas era dirigida também, indiretamente, aos judeus estadunidenses, suspeitos de simpatia pelo império austro-húngaro, e aos judeus russos próximos do poder revolucionário. Muitos membros do incipiente regime comunista queriam que a Rússia assinasse um tratado de paz separado e Londres esperava evitar a debandada de um precioso aliado.
Aliás, Balfour evocou, verbalmente, a missão que seria confiada aos judeus europeus que se instalassem na Palestina: fazer com que seus correligionários no mundo se comportassem bem. Ou seja, que fossem dóceis espias e mensageiros de Londres no Oriente Médio. (No final das contas, o feitiço viraria contra o feiticeiro, como veremos nos últimos capítulos.)
Quanto ao empenho dos judeus russos no projeto sionista, os promotores da declaração Balfour calcularam mal. Ou sua influência não era tão grande junto aos dirigentes bolcheviques ou então seu objeto de lealdade era a pátria recém-conquistada e não um lar a ser forjado a centenas de quilômetros de distância. Pois na noite de 6 para 7 de novembro de 1917, os insurgentes tomaram Petrogrado e solicitaram paz imediata, sem levar em consideração os interesses sectários dos aliados.
Dito isso, não posso fechar este capítulo sem esclarecer que Balfour foi testa de ferro, voluntário ou manipulado, de um marionetista político de garras afiadas; intermediário entre a cúpula sionista e os que decidiam atrás de portas fechadas.
Balfour deixou um sobrenome até hoje amaldiçoado em milhões de lares, mas não foi o artífice da mensagem. A eminência parda era Leopold Amery (1873-1955), que talvez tenha sido o maior contribuinte anônimo ao movimento sionista. Sua lábia funcionou direitinho nos bastidores do poder por onde circulava.
Em outubro de 1917, seu cargo oficial era de assessor político do gabinete de guerra. Foi como tal que recebeu o encargo de redigir a versão final enviada a Rothschild. Fora nomeado no ano anterior por Alfred Milner, então ministro das colônias, que, insatisfeito com as diversas versões rascunhadas, pediu-lhe que sintetizasse a mensagem.

Diz a lenda que este marionetista político produziu-a em um piscar de olhos; o que leva a crer que a missiva já tenha chegado ao gabinete ministerial no bolso interno de sua casaca, dissimulada, pronta para Balfour copiar. Balfour levou a fama, mas Amery ficou para a história de seus correligionários como o autor da “carta fundadora do estado de Israel”.  Por que Milner incumbiu um sionista convicto e ativo de um documento tão grave, é um enigma. Talvez tenha sido pelas mesmas razões contraditórias que levaram Balfour a assiná-lo sem problema de consciência.
Daí em diante Amery galgaria os escalões com o objetivo principal de viabilizar a tomada da Palestina. A contribuição seguinte a este pacto infame foi respaldar a criação da legião judaica sob controle britânico na Palestina durante a primeira guerra mundial. Neste sentido, como subsecretário militar do lorde Derby, ministro da Guerra, junto ao qual advogou empreendimento militar submetido pelo empresário sionista Simon Marks (1888-1964), co-fundador da loja de departamentos Marks & Spencer.
Ele mesmo escreveu mais tarde que Marks, “um velho amigo dos tempos de guerra Sul-africana... pediu minha ajuda na condução das negociações” que consistiam de formar três batalhões judaicos no propósito de fincar um pé armado na Palestina no fim do império otomano. Esta legião foi a primeira força armada explicitamente judaica e foi precursora das brigadas paramilitares yishuv.
Mais tarde, Amery, orgulho de suas proezas, diria de peito estufado: “Parece que meu dedo estava não só na [declaração] Balfour como também na gênese do exército israelense”.
O partidarismo do homem era patente, mesmo não mostrando a cara publicamente.
E o apoio incondicional aos sionistas não fazia unanimidade, muito pelo contrário.
Mesmo assim a Grã-Bretanha não admitiu estar embarcando em canoa furada. Preferiu acreditar na teoria que o lobby sionista patrocinava, que os judeus europeus na Palestina representavam a solução para o império britânico perdurar no Oriente Médio.
Foi com o objetivo de manter seu domínio que o espólio dos vencidos fora negociado entre os Aliados antes mesmo da vitória ser definitiva em 1916, quando Londres e Paris assinaram o acordo Sykes-Picot. E Inglaterra e França não abririam mão de suas pretensões de esticar seus tentáculos a fim de assegurar as matérias primas e supremacia mundial.    Para Londres, a Palestina “protegia” o flanco oriental do Canal de Suez, linha vital entre a Índia e a metrópole europeia. O patrocínio do projeto sionista visava conseguir o máximo de controle regional.
Mas como vimos, os britânicos não se contentaram em comprometer-se com os sionistas, que, para alcançar seus objetivos, teriam feito todas as juras lucrativas sem intenção de cumpri-las. Londres envolveu os dirigentes árabes em promessas de liberdade em contrapartida do apoio logístico e de homens que precisavam para ganhar a guerra; o califa otomano (que exercia autoridade política e religiosa nos países árabes) aderira à Alemanha e ao império austro-húngaro em 1914 e chegou a lançar apelo à guerra santa contra os “infiéis”.
A resposta de Londres foi incitar a insurreição árabe contra o califa, comandada pelo influente xerife Hussein ibn Ali, de Meca.
Mas promessa de político só é compromisso para quem acredita.
Quem não acreditava via que independência árabe, respeito às tradições nacionais palestinas cristãs e muçulmanas, e um lar nacional judeu, eram inconciliáveis em um único estado dominado por sionistas.
São. De fato.
Hoje que os palestinos perderam muito mais de dois terços de sua nação e continuam sendo desapropriados. O único meio de reverter o processo é o reconhecimento do estado palestino nas fronteiras de 1967 e dar um ultimatum aos yishuv do século XXI: ou vão embora para Israel ou ficam, submetidos ao governo independente palestino.
E para implementar esta solução paliativa, é só a ONU mandar seus capacetes azuis para impor o respeito às leis internacionais às quais todos, inclusive Israel, devem obediência.


The worst of all, is Rotschild's boasting version of the taking over of Palestine

The government body in charge of transport in the UK capital London has banned these adverts which highlight Palestinians’ objections to the Balfour Declaration.
Transport for London said it blocked the campaign from transport links on the basis that the issue is politically controversial; however, the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Manuel Hassassian accused the body of censorship.
The adverts had been drawn up to run in key stations in the run up to the centenary of the signing of the declaration on 2 November.
In a statement the Palestine Mission said: “We are deeply disappointed that TfL refused to run our modest advocacy campaign which aimed to raise awareness, among the British public, about the way the Balfour Declaration affected the Palestinian people.”
“It was appropriate and timely to run this campaign as we mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, which was instrumental in the forced expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine who made up 90% of the population in 1917.”
It added: Britain has unfiinished business when it comes to Palestine. It has legal and moral responsibility which must be acknowledged. Restorative action must be taken to give back the Palestinians their basic rihts and self-determination.
The Balfour Declaration refers to the letter sent by UK Foreign Minister, Sir Arthur James Balfour, on 2 November 1917 to Lord Lionel Walter de Rothschild, referring to the British government’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Human rights activists have reiterated calls for Britain to acknowledge the role it played in creating the Israeli state and facilitating the ongoing occupation of Palestine.
Last year, the Palestinian Authority called for the UK government to apologise for the declaration, and sought to sue the UK for causing irreparable damage to the Palestinian people. Such calls have been largely ignored by British politicians who have instead reinforced their support of Israel.
British Prime Minister Theresa May and her Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, are expected to be the guests of honour at a London dinner celebrating the 100th year since the signing of the declaration.
There are nearly six million Palestinians around the world; the majority are refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, while hundreds of thousands live in Europe, the United States and other countries.
Helen Thomas on Israel's occupation of Palestine (07/11)

PALESTINA

Israeli government has been secretly using a U.S. law firm to help it fight the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in Europe, North America and elsewhere, according to documents obtained by Haaretz.
Tel Aviv has hired the Chicago-based firm Sidley Austin to prepare legal opinions and handle court proceedings. The Justice Ministry and the Strategic Affairs Ministry have declined to reveal the nature of these activities, for which the state has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past two years. The ministries call the activities “diplomatically extremely sensitive.”
The secrecy surrounding the contracts raises the suspicion that the work involves not only writing legal opinions but also preparing lawsuits against BDS Movement supporters, as Israel does not want to be revealed as supporting such actions, to avoid the perception that it is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
The money is disbursed as budgetary allocations for international contracts. The Justice Ministry’s report on such contracts shows that Israeli government contracted with Sidley Austin in March 2016 for consulting services, without issuing a tender for competitive bidding. In the first half of 2017, the firm received $219,000 in payments. No other law firms were paid under the same budgetary section.
Sidley Austin did not reply to questions on whether it was working for Binyamin Netanyahu's office.
Sidley Austin is one of the largest American law firms and employs 1,900 lawyers. It is the firm where a young lawyer, Michelle Robinson, met a summer intern named Barack Obama. The firm has four offices in Europe: in Brussels, London, Munich and Geneva.

DAILY LIFE UNDER OCCUPATION

. 
Postado por às Nenhum comentário:
Marcadores:

domingo, 22 de outubro de 2017

For better & for worse: 100 years ago, Russia's Revolution changed the world


It all began in 1905.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was led by a working class who, 12 years earlier had already tasted their own power and experienced bitter defeat.
The momentous year of 1917 was only eight days old when Russian activists took to the streets. On 9th January some 160,000 marched through St Petersburg in freezing temperatures, trailing past food queues and conscripts training for the front line. They marched to commemorate a massacre that had taken place 12 years earlier and was known as Bloody Sunday. The size of the commemoration was testimony both to the depth of the grievances of 1917 and to the continuing resonance of the events of 1905. When Russian workers created their revolution in 1917, they had already created a history of revolutionary struggle to guide them. The revolution of 1905 was the central component of that history.
The war-weary demonstrators of 1917 were remembering a time when anger generated by another military defeat animated protest movements. In 1905, it was Russian losses in a war with Japan which provoked dissatisfaction with the government and created conditions for a Liberal opposition movement to develop. This movement coalesced around demands for a legislative parliament. The Tsar’s response was couched in the paternalistic terms which legitimised his rule. Political reform, Tsar Nicholas explained, would be, ‘harmful to the people God has entrusted to me’.
However, amongst the people, there was a deep desire for change. On the 9th January 1905, a march of some 100,000 people tramped through the deep snow of St Petersburg’s streets. At the head of the march was a priest called Father Gapon. His congregation of impoverished city dwellers was mobilised by his belief that a benevolent Tsar would address their problems if only they could reach him. During the week leading up to the march, some 120000 workers went on strike in St Petersburg. Gapon, as head of the Russian Workers Assembly, seized the initiative and organised the demonstration to hand a petition to the Tsar. A few months later Gapon was exposed as a police spy and murdered by the comrades he betrayed.
The marchers carried religious icons and pictures of the Tsar but on their way to the Tsar’s Winter Palace they were confronted by a squadron of cavalry. Orlando Figes describes what happened next: ‘Some of the marchers scattered but others continued to advance towards the lines of infantry, whose rifles were pointed at them. Two warning salvoes were fired into the air, and then at close range, a third volley was aimed at the unarmed crowd. People screamed and fell to the ground. The soldiers, now panicking themselves, continued to fire steadily into the mass of people. Forty people were killed and hundreds wounded as they tried to flee. Gapon was knocked down in the rush. But he got up, stared in disbelief at the carnage around him, and was heard to say over and over again: ‘There is not God any long, there is no Tsar’.’
Other accounts put the number of deaths much higher, but what is beyond dispute is that the massacre marked a political shift the consciousness of many Russian workers. ‘In that one vital moment, the popular myth of a Good Tsar which had sustained the regime through the centuries was suddenly destroyed’, Figes writes. Alexandra Kollontai, who became a leading Bolshevik, was on the Bloody Sunday march. She described how the Tsar had unknowingly killed more than the people lying in the snow: He had also killed, ‘the workers’ faith that they could ever achieve justice from him. From then on everything was different and new’.
A huge wave of strikes and protests erupted as news of the massacre spread across the Russian Empire. Students organised protests, while in the countryside peasants refused to pay their rent, seized land and burned down some 3,000 manor houses. The regime used the army to put down rural rebellions but by June the unrest had spread to the navy. There was a mutiny among sailors on the Battleship Potemkin, an event later made famous by film director Sergei Eisenstein. However, at the heart of the revolution were the waves of strikes which broke out repeatedly, dying down only to erupt again, with new demands and new displays of solidarity.
The revolution was at its strongest in countries which were part of the Russian Empire where resentment against Russian rule helped to fuel the protests. Around one-third of all the strikes that took place in the Russian Empire in 1905 took place in Poland. Polish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg smuggled herself into Warsaw to bear witness to events and to attempt to shape them. In February 1905 while the revolution was in full swing, Luxemburg described how she was witnessing the development of new, powerful social force.
Russia was a notoriously backward and undeveloped economy but in their rush to catch up with Britain, Germany and France the Russian ruling classes had succeeded in creating their own gravedigger. Luxemburg explained how Russian Tsarism had desperately attempted to transplant Western capitalism into Russia. ‘The bankrupt absolute regime, for fiscal and military purposes, needed railways and telegraphs, iron and coal machines, cotton and cloth. The absolute regime nurtured capitalism by the all the methods of pillaging the people and by the most ruthless policy of protective tariff – and thus unconsciously dug its own grave. It lovingly nursed the exploiting capitalist class – and thus produced a proletariat outraged at exploitation and suppression’. (Rosa Luxemburg, 1905).
Faced with the sustained movement of strikes and protests, the Tsar was forced to acknowledge the need for reform. His advisors drew up plans for a purely consultative parliament. In the early days of 1905 this concession may have been enough, but following months of revolutionary action, it was too little too late. In September, the revolution culminated in a massive strike wave which developed into a general strike. In Moscow, the printers struck and were joined first by rail workers and then by millions of others in cities across Russia. The scope of strike movement became so wide that even actors from St Petersburg’s Imperial Theatre walked out.
The general strike was as geographically wide as it was socially deep. In Poland the ‘outraged proletariat’ was inspiring other sections of society: ‘The revolt of the industrial workers in late January and early February gave other independent social and political movements their cue.’ (Robert Blobaum, Rewolucia). Everywhere, striking workers were demonstrating their power and their capacity to lead others into struggle. The greatest revolutionaries were quick to grasp the significance of the workers’ action and eager to generalise their experience to other countries. Rosa Luxemburg wrote The Mass Strike in which she described how the revolutions of the past were characterised by street barricades and armed conflict with the state. In contrast, she wrote, in the revolutions of the future confrontation with the state would be only a moment in the process of proletarian struggle because workers would express their revolutionary energy through the mass strike movement. The interaction between economic and political demands meant that mass strikes could become the key method of generalising revolutionary struggle. The most precious aspect of the strikes was not the concessions that they won, but the ‘spiritual growth’, the political development of those participating in them.
The strike wave created the potential for workers to organise in new ways to meet the needs of the population. In St Petersburg, the home of some of the world’s biggest factories, this need was answered by the Council of Workers Deputies or Soviet. A young Jewish revolutionary known as Leon Trotsky was one of the elected leaders of the Soviet. He described its activities: ‘By pressure of strikes, the Soviet won the freedom of the press. It organised regular street patrols to ensure the safety of citizens. To a greater or lesser extent, it took the postal and telegraph services and the railways into its hands. It made an attempt to introduce the eight-hour day by direct revolutionary pressure. Paralysing the activities of the autocratic state by means of insurrectionary strike, it introduced its own free democratic order into the life of the labouring urban population.’ Some 50 other soviets were set up in other major cities to coordinate strikes and run key services under the control of the workers themselves. The workers demonstrated their ability not only to bring society to a standstill but also to organise it themselves in their own interests.
The Tsar was forced to sign the October Manifesto which established a real parliament called the Duma. There was widespread jubilation across Russia. However, while the October Manifesto satisfied the middle classes and the Liberals, the workers and peasants had tasted their power and were demanding more fundamental change. Politics had moved to the streets and factories. Those who feared and detested the revolution began to organise. The Council of the United Nobility established the Black Hundreds which drew support from rich land owners, merchants, clergymen and policemen. They whipped up Monarchist fervour and unleashed anti-Semitic pogroms and violence against socialists and trade unionists. The Black Hundreds assisted the Tsarist regime in maintaining its rule. Their campaign of political terror gave Russians a glimpse of what regimes under pressure to change were capable of unleashing on their people and foreshadowed the fascist movements of the later 20th century.
The revolutionaries were also organising. In scenes that fore shadowed events of 1917, Lenin returned from exile in Geneva and immediately called for an armed uprising. He understood that the revolutionary forces were inexperienced, but he also understood that the process of revolution would transform the worker's movement. ‘To say that because we cannot win we should not stage an insurrection –that is simply the talk of cowards’, he declared. Trotsky argued that ‘retreat without battle may mean the party abandoning the masses under enemy fire’.
On 3rd December the leaders of the St Petersburg Soviet were arrested. In response the different factions of the socialist left, the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries called a General Strike. The governor of Moscow tried to arrest the strike leaders and this provoked a city-wide uprising. Barricades were made of overturned trams and several districts were under rebel control for over a week. However, one railway station remained in the hands of the regime and this meant that troops could be to be brought in from St Petersburg. These regiments shelled the whole Presnia district, the heart of the uprising, and pulverised it into submission. General Min ordered a final assault, telling his troops, ‘Act without mercy. There will be no arrests’. The thousand rebels who were killed included 140 women and 80 children.
The experience of revolution in 1905 provided some indispensable lessons for the Russian Socialist Movement, in what workers’ power looked like and how to seize power. For Trotsky, the months between January and October 1905 revealed a vital truth about revolutionary movements in the 20th century. The Russian Revolution, ‘although directly concerned with bourgeois aims, could not stop short at those aims: the revolution could not solve its immediate, bourgeois tasks except by putting the proletariat into power. And the proletariat, once having power in its hands would not be able to remain confined within the bourgeois framework of the revolution.’ (Trotsky, 1905) To win, Trotsky argued, workers would have to confront not only ancient feudal structures but modern bourgeois relationships too. His theory of Permanent Revolution was developed out of the experience of 1905.
The revolutionary workers of 1905 had created a new form of organisation, the workers’ council or Soviet, which could direct and lead revolutionary struggle. In 1917, the Soviets would rise again to express the creative capacity of the working classes.
The marchers of 1917 commemorated those carried pictures of the Tsar as they were shot down on Bloody Sunday. They also commemorated those who just 10 months later were killed while fighting for a socialist society.
But the Socialists of 1917 were not content with remembering the past. They wanted to emulate the achievements of 1905 but with one crucial difference – this time they would win.
And they did.
And for seven decades they salvaged genuine reforms; particularly on the field of education and culture. 
However, it came with a high price - freedom of speach and so many worthy lives. 
Many questions remain, though.
Was Capitalism less lethal during the same period of time?
Is a democratic socialist society achievable?
Will one day men and women morally evolve to the point of becoming unselfish and just?
From where I stand, in terms of human evolution world wide, unfortunatelly, science and technology rapidly advance to make life easier and better (for some) but people are getting rather worse, actually.  
This being said, I must add that I don't lose hope in individuals who want to do good and act on it against all odds. 
Like Karl Marx, I am allowed to dream. 
Like all human beings, hope is one of my leitmotifs.

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

domingo, 15 de outubro de 2017

U.S.A. & Israel back from UNESCO Hamas & Fatah reconciliation

Breaking News 
Daphne Caruana Galizia, the journalist who led the Panama Papers  investigation into corruption in Malta, was killed on Monday in a car bomb near her home.
A blogger whose posts often attracted more readers than the combined circulation of the country’s newspapers, Caruana was recently described by the Politico website as a “one-woman WikiLeaks”. Her blogs were a thorn in the side of both the establishment and underworld figures that hold sway in Europe’s smallest member state.
Her most recent revelations pointed the finger at Malta’s prime minister, Joseph Muscat, and two of his closest aides, connecting offshore companies linked to the three men with the sale of Maltese passports and payments from the government of Azerbaijan.
Justice to Caruana!   NO to bias inquiry on her murder!
Caruana, you will be missed. Thank you for accomplishing your mission of journalist. 

Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanyahu have just pulled one more political stunt, by announcing their decision to leave UNESCO.
The withdrawal of the United States, which is meant to provide a fifth of UNESCO’s funding, is a major blow for the Paris-based organization, founded after World War Two to help protect cultural and natural heritage around the world.
UNESCO is best known for designating World Heritage Sites such as the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and the Grand Canyon National Park.
“This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement.
Hours later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would quit too. In recent years, Tel Aviv  has repeatedly complained about what it says is the body taking sides in disputes over cultural heritage sites in the Palestinian occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova expressed her disappointment: “At the time when conflicts continue to tear apart societies across the world, it is deeply regrettable for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations agency promoting education for peace and protecting culture under Attack. This is a loss to the United Nations family. This is a loss for multilateralism.”
It is bad economical news, but one must know that the USA, during Barack Obama's administration, has already withheld its funding for UNESCO since 2011, when the body admitted Palestine as a full member. The United States and Israel were among just 14 of 194 members that voted against admitting the Palestinians. Washington’s arrears on its $80 million annual dues since then are now over $500 million.
Threrefore, UNESCO has been living without USA & Israel's contributions since 2011, thanks to Barack Obama. The official withdrawal, which Under UNESO rules will become effective as of the end of December 2018, is nothing but much ado about nothing.
Further to the matter, after four days of secret balloting to pick a new UNESCO chief, Qatar’s Hamad bin Abdulaziz al-Kawari qualified for the Friday runoff.
France’s Audrey Azoulay and Egypt’s Moushira Khattab were tied in second. One will be eliminated after another vote by 58-member Executive Council on Friday. If the two finalists end level, they draw lots.
The election has exposed the deep rivalries between Qatar and Egypt that has its roots in the crisis engulfing Qatar and its Gulf Arab neighbors which have severed diplomatic, trade and travel ties with Doha.
As to all that's going on in UNESCO in favour of Palestine, there is a brilliant man behind the scenes: Elias Sanbar. Born in Haifa, then Palestine, in 1947, Elias is one of the most distingueshed Arab intellectuals today. And after Edward Said and Mahmoud Darwish's death, THE most influential Palestinian intellectual alive. His activities encompas literature, law, history, translation, journalism and diplomacy. He was in Oslo with Yasser Arafat. 
Over four décades Elias has brought a significant contribution to an improved understanding of Palestine.
In 1981, he co-founded (with Leila Shahid - PA representative in France until Arafat's death; the Russel Tribunal was established in response to her call and Ken Coates') in Paris one of the most respected publications about Palestine anywhere - La Revue d'études palestiniennes, of which he was the editor-in-chief for 25 years. It was closed in 2008.
In 1982, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze interviewed Elias. They examined the importance of the journal and the existence of the people and land of Palestine. Disgracefully, 35 years later, these discussions are still desparingly relevant to today's injustice. Check the following excerpt: 
(Deleuze: Many articles in the Revue d'Etudes Palestiniennes recall and analyze in a new way the procedures by which the Palestinians have been driven out of their territories. This is very important because the Palestinians are not in the situation of colonized peoples but of evacuees, of people driven out. You insist, in the book you are writing, on the comparison with the American Indians. There are two very different movements within capitalism. Now it is a matter of taking a people on their own territory and making them work, exploiting them, in order to accumulate a surplus: that's what is ordinarily called a colony. Now, on the contrary, it is a matter of emptying a territory of its people in order to make a leap forward, even if it means making them into a workforce elsewhere. The history of Zionism and Israel, like that of America, happened that second way: how to make an empty space, how to throw out a people?"
Sanbar: "I think that in 1948 our country was not merely occupied but was somehow "disappeared." That's certainly the way that the Jewish settlers, who at that moment became "Israelis," had to live the thing.
The Zionist movement mobilized the Jewish community in Palestine not with the idea that the Palestinians were going to leave one day, but with the idea that the country was "empty." Of course there were certain people who, arriving there, noticed the opposite and wrote about it! But the bulk of this community functioned vis-à-vis the people with whom it physically rubbed shoulders every day as if those people were not there. And this blindness was not physical, no one was deceived in the slightest degree, but everyone knew that these people present today were "on the point of disappearance," everyone also realized that in order for this disappearance to succeed, it had to function from the start as if it had already taken place, which is to say by never "seeing" the existence of the other who was indisputably present all the same. In order to succeed, the emptiness of the terrain must be based in an evacuation of the "other" from the settlers' own heads.
In order to arrive there, the Zionist movement consistently played upon a racist vision which made Judaism the very basis of the expulsion, of the rejection of the other. This was decisively aided by the persecutions in Europe which, led by other racists, allowed them to find a confirmation of their own approach.
We think moreover that Zionism has imprisoned the Jews, it's taking them captive with this vision I just described. I'm saying that it's taking them captive and not that it took them captive at a given time. I say this because once the holocaust passed, the approach evolved, it was transformed into a pseudo-"eternal principle" that says the Jews are always and everywhere "the Other" of the societies in which they live.
But there is no people, no community which could claim- and happily for them- perpetually to occupy this position of the rejected and accursed "other."
Today, the other in the Middle East is the Arab, the Palestinian. And the height of hypocrisy and cynicism is the demand, made by Western powers upon this "other" whose disappearance is constantly the order of the day, for guarantees. But we are the ones who need guarantees against the madness of the Israeli military leaders".)
Despite this, the PLO, our one and only representative, has presented its solution to the conflict: the democratic state of Palestine, a state which would tear down the existing walls separating all the inhabitants, whoever they may be.
Gilles Deleuze and Elias Sanbar had an enlightening conversation, which is only possible between two brilliant minds.
Furthermore, Elias' translations into French of the work of Mahmoud Arwish is a major contribution to the dissemination of Palestinian culture. He also co-authored Le rescapé et exilé (The Survivor and the Exiled) with holoccaust survival Stéphane Hessel, a book that has considerable international impact.
Since 2012, Elias Sanbar has been Palestine's Ambassador and Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.


It was with almost unseemly haste that Fatah and Hamas, the two main Palestinian factions, announced that they had reached a preliminary unity agreement in Cairo on 12 October, after two days of negotiations.
The deal has been greeted with some fanfare in Ramallah and in Gaza, where crowds took to the Streets to celebrate the announcement, optimistic that the agreement could bring real change for the impoverished coastal strip that could prevent a long-predicted, full-blown humanitarian disaster.
But real obstacles remain, and any optimism that a breakthrough has been achieved must be guarded.
This is not the first agreement that has been struck in the 10 years since 2007, when Hamas ousted Fatah forces from Gaza. In fact there have been four, all of which eventually dissipated in mutual recriminations: Mecca (2007), Cairo (2011), Doha (2012) and Gaza & Cairo (2014). There were also the Sanaa declaration in 2008 and the Cairo accord in 2012.
Some of the issues that prevented previous disagreements from being resolved have been addressed this time. Pay for some 40,000 civil servants hired after Hamas ousted Fatah forces and the PA paid former civil servants to stay home was one such sticking point. Under the agreement announced yesterday, the PA has agreed to pay half of what their salary would be, equivalent to what they are being paid now, pending vetting of their qualifications.
Some 3,000 Fatah security officers are to join Gaza’s police as a first step for the PA to take control over Gaza. Moreover, the Palestinian presidential guard is to take up responsibility for crossings from Gaza to both Israel and Egypt, the latter at Rafah to be supervised by an EU border agency, EUBAM.
But there has been no resolution as to what to do with Hamas’ military wing, estimated at some 25,000 strong. In the past week, Abbas has called on Hamas to lay down its arms, a demand that is unlikely to be met. That in turn means that Fatah security control over Gaza, at least in the short term, will be mostly cosmetic.
There is also no agreement on any overall political program, an issue that could prove problematic should the most important player in this equation, Israel, dig in its heels.
“Israel will examine developments on the ground and act accordingly,” Tel Aviv government stated in response, warning that any reconciliation agreement must include compliance with Quartet conditions, spelled out under the 2003 roadmap plan for peace, which include a recognition of Israel’s “right to exist” and an end to armed resistance.
While Hamas’ new charter paved the way for de facto recognition of Israel, calling the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1949 armistice lines and the return of refugees a “national consensus,” it “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”
Moreover, armed resistance to a military occupation is enshrined Under international law and also asserted by Hamas as the “strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.”
Hamas might well implement a long-term ceasefire – which it effectively has since 2014 – but that is likely the furthest Hamas is prepared to go, and it is not clear whether this will be enough for Israel.
On the other side, Egypt has its own agenda, of course. 
Cairo has played a key role and has a number of interests at stake. Cairo wants to enlist Hamas in its efforts to quell a Sinai insurgency that has proven resilient to draconian military measures.
Deploying the army in the Sinai Peninsula is taking valuable resources away from a military that is also engaged in Libya – whose civil war, now in its sixth year, is regarded as a direct national security threat by Cairo. It is proving a drag on an economy whose recent growth has been largely driven by public investment and which has seen its important tourism sector falter as the number of visitors to the country plummeted.
Hamas has proven a willing partner, even as it rejects Egyptian accusations that it has actively abetted Sinai militants. Security forces in Gaza have begun clearing a buffer zone in Rafah, along Gaza’s boundary with Egypt, to prevent arms and people smuggling. Hamas has also arrested Salafi activists in Gaza and become a target itself for militants, most recently in a suicide bombing last August in the boundary area with Egypt that killed one of its officers.
But Sinai is not Cairo’s only priority. Egypt is trying to improve its regional standing, undermined by the turmoil and bloodshed of the 2011 revolution and 2013 military coup. A successful unity agreement will be a significant diplomatic victory for Cairo. That, in turn, may convince Washington – where the US Congress is withholdingsome $95 million in aid and delaying a further $195 million over Egypt’s human rights record, including abuse accusations in Sinai – that Cairo remains a crucial player in the region, and therefore an important partner for US interests, a status it enjoyed for decades until the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.
Easing the blockade
Fundamental to the success of any agreement will be to what extent Egypt is willing to ease the blockade on Gaza. Without an opening for goods and people there is no reason for Hamas to compromise and no benefit for Gaza.
Only then can the US$5.4 billion pledged by foreign governments to rebuild the battered coastal strip after Israel’s 2014 assault begin to make a difference.
Cairo seems serious. Not only is it the only way to ensure Hamas cooperates on Sinai, Cairo’s efforts to bring Fatah and Hamas together were partly an attempt to secure PA cover for such an opening. An earlier agreement with Muhammad Dahlan, the erstwhile Gaza security chief, sworn enemy of Hamas and longstanding Abbas rival, would not have provided this cover, but would likely have functioned as leverage over Fatah in negotiations. The last thing Abbas would have wanted was for Dahlan to re-enter Palestinian politics through Gaza and Hamas, Egypt and the UAE, which promised to bankroll that deal.
Israel might well balk at this. Its blockade has prevented reconstruction of the hundreds of thousands of homes and other buildings its military damaged or destroyed over three deadly assaults, and rendered essential utilities at near-collapse, leaving Gaza at the risk of a humanitarian disaster that the UN has warned could leave the strip uninhabitable in three years.
Egypt’s dictator  Abdulfattah al-Sisi has proven willing to go his own way on several issues in pursuit of what he sees as his country’s interests.
He broke with Riyadh over Syria in 2015, even though Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries were important financial backers in the years after al-Sisi ousted the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood president Muhammad Morsi in 2013. And he has reached out to Moscow, as relations with the US soured under Barack Obama.
Nevertheless, Cairo will only go so far to defy Israel and much will depend on what happens on the ground. Hamas is likely to go the extra mile to ensure that the agreement sticks. It has been weakened by the loss of its most important sponsor when Gulf countries moved to isolate Qatar, and has seen Gaza suffer not only three devastating Israeli military assaults, but sanctions imposed by the PA in Ramallah.
Abbas, meanwhile, has little to show for his presidency. Stubbornly committed to a peace process of which he was a primary architect but which has brought little but new Israeli settlements in occupied territory, the octogenarian leader is likely on his last furlong. A successful unity agreement might just set him up for one last stab at negotiations. It also ensures that Dahlan is kept out of the equation a little while longer.
But while the weakness of both sides provides some common ground, mutual confidence remains low. And where Hamas is isolated, Abbas’s PA is largely dependant on funding from the US and EU, giving both undue leverage.
Not only do both consider Hamas a terrorist organization, the current US administration, for all its talk of brokering an ultimate deal, has said or done nothing so far that has veered significantly or even slightly from Washington’s proIsrael orthodoxy.
And even if all those potential stumbling blocks can be cleared, any progress toward lasting reconciliation can at any moment be canceled by Israel.
A warning this week by a top Israeli general that escalation would likely result from “provocative actions” by Hamas fighters aiming laser pointers at Israeli soldiers – surely the military equivalent of a bar room drunk’s “you looking at me?” taunt – shows just how easily that could happen.
And Tel Aviv is craving to see bombs dropping on Gaza sooner than later.

Inside Story: Can a deal between Palestinian rivals survive?


PALESTINA
If you are in London this Fall, go to the Young Vic Theater to see: 
My Name is Rachel Corrie

If you are in New York City right now, go to the NYU theater to see
The Freedom Theatre: The Siege
History: April 2002. Spring in Bethlehem. A group of armed Palestinian resistants seek sanctuary in one of the world’s holiest sites as the Israeli army closes in with helicopters, tanks and snipers. Along with the fighters are some 100 priests, nuns and civilians. The siege lasts for 39 days, paralyzing the center of Bethlehem and keeping tens of thousands under curfew. Inside the Church of Nativity the besieged are hungry and weakening. The smell of unwashed bodies and broken lavatories is mixed with the stench from the suppurating wounds of the injured. Two dead bodies are decomposing in a cave below the church. While the world is watching, the fighters are faced with the question of whether to struggle to the end or to surrender. No matter what they choose, they will have to leave their families and their homend behind. 
The Siege is a passionate retelling of the story of the 2002 Israeli siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity as the Israeli army closed in, during the height of the second intifada.
The directors traced the resistants, now exiled across Europe and Gaza, and collected their and others’ untold accounts of this event that with time has taken on almost mythical proportion.
Drawn from interviews with survivors, the play is told from the point of view of some of the Palestinian resistants who found refuge in the church. Along with 200 civilians, they were given sanctuary by the church's resident priests and nuns and spent 39 days there with dwindling food, water and medical supplies. While the world watched, the resistants grappled with survival, ideology, and the decision to continue the struggle to the end, or surrender. 
The Freedom Theatre, based in the West Bank refugee camp of Jenin, is dedicated to using culture and art as catalysts for social change. Through workshops, classes and professional theater productions, the company helps Palestinian adults, youth and women develop tools to deal with the hardships of daily life under occupation. 
palest
After the Jenin Freedom Theatre’s production of “The Siege” made its long-awaited American premiere at NYU las Thursday night, the audience could see the obvious that the hasbara hides:  Palestinians are as human as anyone you know. They do not want to kill you, or be killed, or threaten you. They only wish to take part, to be granted dignity, to participate freely in the world’s commons.
And: it never happens.
It never happens that Americans or any other people, for that matter, get to see them as normal players in the varied roles of modern life. They don’t get to tell their stories. They are censored and maligned and blockaded. This show, for instance, was shut down for a year because of Israeli lobby. A lot of the company had to jump through hoops to get out of Palestine. Some didn’t get out.
The Siege is overwhelming, a scarring historical drama by Nabil Al-Raee about a group of Palestinian reesistants holed up in the Nativity Church during the Second intifada with the Israeli army shooting at them and George W. Bush trying to make them disappear. The action is unrelenting and also utterly recognizable as human. Watching them you say, I would do the same if I had guts. I would tell my brother or son or sister they were doing the right thing. When the Israelis put the mother on the phone to talk to a resistant leader played by Faisal Abualhayjaa and she says she will cut off the breast that fed him if he surrenders, I thought, seeing it tin 2015: I would say the same thing.
A friend who saw the play at NYU found that those intimate moments are the best ones. "When the big awkward quiet resistant played by Ghantus Wael breaks out of his character and declares that all he has ever wanted is a normal life in this land, to marry his beloved and raise a family and hope that his children can dream of better things, we feel the simple poetics of his condition. I wanted to leap to my feet and roar and clap for him. When the goofy and seemingly indifferent militant played by Rabee Hanani says his family were made refugees in 1948 and then he became a fugitive from his refugee camp when he joined the resistance, and now, by accepting a deal to leave the church, he will be exiled from his homeland and family indefinitely, we are forced to consider the Palestinian experience in all its bitter unending reality".
A tragic and unjust reality, as it is. 
Postado por às Nenhum comentário:
Marcadores: , ,
Assinar: Postagens (Atom)